Question Set 6 for RFP W15QKN-22-R-0008 - final.pdf

18 MAR2022 Questions

W15QKN-22-R-0008

1. Ref: MIL-DTL-326692 revNA, 4.3.2.3 XM1128 body machined (prior to nosing): Can the USG please provide definitions and dimensions for each of the surface defects? Can the USG please provide clarification as to when to apply the terminology to an observed cavity condition? For example, what dimensional criteria defines a pit, draw mark, etc. as listed in this clause 3.6.2 of MIL-DTL-326692.

Government Response: The correct specification number is MIL-DTL-32692. Paragraph 4.3.2.3, Major 101, “Examination or Test” states “Presence of surface defects in projectile cavity”. The “Requirement” for this “Examination or Test” is paragraph 3.6.2 as reflected in paragraph 4.3.2.3 table. Paragraph 3.6.2 includes the terms “scale, fins, burrs, draw marks, laminations, imbedded foreign matter, and pits…” Paragraph 3.6.2 also includes paragraph

3.6.1. Paragraph 3.6.1 contains the terms “cracks, splits, bursts, cold shuts, pipes, porosity, inclusions, folds, seams”. The Government has provided the following commonly accepted metal working definitions of the included terms:

Scale - oxide layer, typically a flaky or spheroidal, byproduct of metal processing

Fins - projection on a forging

Burrs - a raised edge, piece of material, or formation of rough edge or ridges that remains attached to a metal piece after a production process

Draw marks - usually rises or depressions in the metal, imparted to the surface of the forged part from dies containing surface imperfections or defects, or dies that had repair work

Laminations - imperfection in a steel or alloy, likely resulting from blisters, seams, foreign material, porosity, pipe, scratches, and/or non-metallic inclusions that are flattened and spread out

Imbedded foreign matter - material that is different from the metal that is enclosed by, surrounded by, or imbedded in the metal

Pits - an indentation in the surface of the metal that is concave to the surface

Crack - surface or subsurface rupture, separation, opening, break, and/or split in the metal with length and depth

Splits - metal forming related defect that is an open void resulting from too much localized stretching, similar to tearing or ripping of material

Bursts - ruptures that occur in a forging due to an incorrect forging technique or forging process related issue, and are often located near the center of the forging

Cold shuts - discontinuity from imperfect surface or subsurface fusion, lack of fusion, incorrect tool design, or incorrect flow of metal forming a boundary layer that converged together or crack in the surface

Pipes - elongated cavity discontinuity in the metal that is either surface or subsurface

Porosity - discontinuities that are spherical like cavities or holes found at the surface or near the surface that may get flattened, elongated, or fused shut during subsequent manufacturing operations

Inclusions - discontinuity in the metal formed by the encompassment of slag, dross, oxides, sulfides, or silicates. The properties of those inclusions are different from the metal and usually they have irregular shapes and discontinuous nature

Folds - also known as lap. Discontinuity that may appear as a seam, which form where metal folds over itself during metal forming. Irregular in contour

Seams - elongated surface discontinuities that may occur in bars during rolling or drawing operations, or result from use of faulty, poorly lubricated, or oversized dies. Appear as straight or spiral lines, either continuous or broken

The Government will not provide dimensions for each of the aforementioned defects.

Paragraph 4.3.2.3 defines the “Inspection Method” for Major 101 as a “Visual” inspection.

A “Visual” inspection does not require defined dimensions. A visual inspection is the process of examining an item using the naked eye to look for flaws or defects. Paragraph

3.6.1 and 3.6.2 are applied in the production process as required in the “Conformance Inspection” tables they are located.

2. Ref: RFP W15QKN-22-R-0008, C.3.3.5.1.2 Visual Acceptance Standards for Cavity Surface Defects. C..3.3.5.1.2.2 & C.3.3.5.1.2.2: Please provide clarification on how to apply the use of approved visual standards as acceptance criteria in order to maintain compliance to body machined the requirements for compliance to the MIL-DTL-326692 Rev A clause 3.6.2 Projectile Cavity Surface Defects.

Government Response: The correct specification number is MIL-DTL-32692. MIL-DTL- 32692 paragraph 3.6.2 states, “Projectile cavity surface defects… As specified in the contract, visual standards for evaluation of surface defects may be established for each production line after the first month of production for each contract, if applicable. Visual standards for scale or pits will only be evaluated or established in the base of the projectile. Visual standards shall not preclude the requirement for compliance with 3.9 (see 6.4).”

“Requirement” paragraph 3.6.2 is located in “Conformance Inspection” paragraphs 4.3.2.3 as Major M101, and paragraph 4.3.2.7 as Major M108. For both Majors the “Inspection Method” is listed as “Visual” inspection. With respect to the requirements statement in paragraph 3.6.2, “visual standards for evaluation of surface defects may be established…”, the approved visual standards for evaluation of surface defects support the “Conformance Inspection” paragraphs 4.3.2.3 Major M101, and paragraph 4.3.2.7 Major M108 visual inspections.

3. Ref: RFP W15QKN-22-R-0008, C.3.3.5.1.2 Visual Acceptance Standards for Cavity Surface Defects. C..3.3.5.1.2.4: Please provide clarification on what event would constitute the revocation of a previously approved standard, and what impact would that have on past product evaluated against the approved visual standard.

Government Response: As stated in Paragraph C.3.3.5.1.2.4, “If any of the conditions identified in C.3.3.5.1.2.3 occur, the Government reserves the right to suspend the approval of that visual standard for cavity surface defect.” Paragraph C.3.3.5.1.2.3 details the conditions as follows: “a) The defect represented by the approved visual standard exceeds 20% of production in a month”, “b) The defect represented by the approved visual standard exceeds 20% of the lot.”, and “c) If the percentage rate of occurrence for the defect in a month increases more than the previous month for three consecutive months.”

The use of the suspended visual standard for cavity surface defect to support visual inspections on projectiles required per MIL-DTL-32692 paragraphs 4.3.2.3 Major M101, and paragraph 4.3.2.7 Major M108 would cease. For clarification paragraph C.3.3.5.1.2.4 has been updated as follows:

“If any of the conditions identified in C.3.3.5.1.2.3 occur, the Government reserves the right to suspend the approval of that visual standard for cavity surface defect. The Contractor shall not use the suspended visual standard for cavity surface defect to support inspection and acceptance of cavities under this contract for the duration of the suspension. Upon acceptance of the revised root cause analysis with preventative measures report, the Contracting Officer may lift suspension of that visual acceptance standard for cavity surface defect where upon the visual standard for cavity surface defect may once again be used to support production inspection and acceptance of cavities under this contract.”

There is no impact included within the paragraph with respect to units already delivered to the Government.

4. Ref: RFP W15QKN-22-R-0008, C.3.3.6.1.2 Manufactured Ultrasonic Defect Standards: If there is an issue with a Manufactured UT Standards during a recertification, can you confirm that the only parts after the previous successful recertification and the current unsuccessful recertification are segregated? The intent of this question is to bracket the WIP in question given an issue with a Manufactured UT Standard recertification.

Government Response: Paragraph C.3.3.6.1.2 Manufactured Ultrasonic Defect Standards does not detail a recertification requirement. However, paragraph C.3.3.6.1 Ultrasonic Test Standards does include details on a recertification requirement for the Ultrasonic Test Standards. In order to clarify that the parts inspected since the previous successful certification are suspect, Paragraph C.3.3.6.1 has been updated with the following language:

“…At a minimum, the Contractor shall recertify the standards annually and submit recertification to the Government. Recertification submission shall include measurement of the targets in each standard. If the recertification of the standards is unsuccessful, all parts made since the previous successful certification are suspect. The Contractor shall not submit any suspect material for acceptance. The Contractor shall conduct a root cause investigation and document the investigation within a report. The Contractor shall submit the complete investigation report with the Contractor’s proposed corrective actions and preventative measures plan in writing to the Government in accordance with the DD Form 1423 (DI- SESS-80255A). The Contractor’s investigation results and proposed corrective actions require approval by the Contracting Officer. The Contracting Officer shall approve final disposition of the suspect parts.”

5. Ref: RFP W15QKN-22-R-0008, C.3.3.6.1.2 USG Manufactured UT Standards: The referenced SOW section states 24 additional parts will be provided to the USG, but not detail whom is responsible for the additional work. Please provide clarification as to whom will be responsible for the manufacture/addition of notches/FBH to the standards?

Government Response: Section C.3.3.6.1.2 states “…the Contractor shall provide the Government with 24 additional projectile bodies to support Government Manufactured Ultrasonic Defect Standards.” The Government will be responsible to machine the notches and holes for the Manufactured Ultrasonic Defect Standards in C.3.3.6.1.2 only.

6. Ref: RFP W15QKN-22-R-0008, C.3.3.6.1.2 USG Manufactured UT Standards: Will the USG allow for qualification of UT test equipment on existing, similar metal parts to facilitate qualification within the required three-month timeframe?

Government Response: Paragraph C.3.3.6.1.2 does not include a qualification within a three-month timeframe discussion. Paragraph C.3.3.5.2 discusses “…a phased-in approach on prove-out testing of Critical Characteristic Automated Acceptance Inspection Equipment (AAIE) to demonstrate reliability and confidence level required in MSE paragraph (g)…”

This paragraph states “…The phased-in approach to demonstrate the MSE paragraph (g) requirements shall not to exceed 90 calendar days from the date of first article approval or from initiation of production when first article is not required….” The metal parts used to support the “…initial qualification of the AAIE…” may be used to facilitate the qualification within the 90 calendar days.

7. Ref: RFP W15QKN-22-R-0008, C.3.3.6.2.3 Verification using USG Manufactured UT Standards: C.3.3.6.2.3 Verification using USG Manufactured UT Standards.

Government Response: This is not a question. No response.

8. Ref: RFP W15QKN-22-R-0008, C.3.3.3.7: With regard to the approval of NDT cert packages, is the approval authority with the USG instead of the Responsible Level III?

Government Response: The Government is the approval authority for use of those operators on this Government contract.

9. Ref: RFP W15QKN-22-R-0008, C.3.3.15.1.6.1 Yield Strength: We recommend the yield strength difference be adjusted due to normal laboratory variability between operators in conjunction with the impact that sample handling. The variation between laboratories may exceed the 15% difference threshold without the material being the cause of discrepancy.

Therefore, we respectfully request the yield strength difference be adjusted to 20% to allow for these variables.

Government Response: The yield strength large discrepancy definition in paragraph C.3.3.15.1.6.1 will not be adjusted. Paragraph C.3.3.15.1.6 details the requirements should the value exceed the yield strength large discrepancy definition in C.3.3.15.1.6.1.

10. Ref: RFP W15QKN-22-R-0008, C.3.3.15.1.6.2 Elongation: We recommend the elongation difference be adjusted due to normal laboratory variability between operators in conjunction with the impact that sample handling. The variation between laboratories may exceed the 50% difference threshold without the material being the cause of discrepancy.

Therefore, we respectfully request the elongation difference be adjusted to 60% to allow for these variables.

Government Response: The percent elongation large discrepancy definition in paragraph C.3.3.15.1.6.2 will not be adjusted. Paragraph C.3.3.15.1.6 details the requirements should the value exceed the percent elongation large discrepancy definition in C.3.3.15.1.6.2.

11. Ref: RFP W15QKN-22-R-0008, C.3.3.16 Process Capability Control & Improvement: Please define the characteristics that will be subject to Process Capability Control & Improvement.

Government Response: Refer to Attachment 003 - Quality Assurance Addendum, Item 11, Paragraph (g) for the required characteristics.

12. Ref: RFP W15QKN-22-R-0008: Several RFP sections require “immediate” notification (ex:

SOW Sections C.3.3.6.2.3, C.3.3.15.1.6, C.3.3.15.2): Will the USG please provide notification timeframes for any reference to “immediate” in the solicitation?

Government Response: Paragraph C.3.3.6.2.3 has been updated to remove the word “immediately” and revise the sentence as follows: “…the Contractor shall contact the Contracting Officer within 24 hours.”

Paragraph C.3.3.15.1.6 has been updated to remove the word “immediately” and revise the sentence as follows: “The Contractor shall immediately notify the Contracting Officer within two business days if…” The following sentence has been revised to: “Upon receipt of notification and associated test data, the Government will notify the Contractor within five business days if a Contractor root cause investigation and report is required.”

Paragraph C.3.3.15.2 has been updated to remove the word “immediately” and revised the sentence as follows “…the Contractor shall contact the Contracting Officer within two business days...”

13. Ref: RFP W15QKN-22-R-0008, C.4.3, Hard Copies of ADCs: For the hard copies that will be signed by the DCMA representative, are the original copies required to go with the BLAT shipment, or are copies allowed?

Government Response: Copies of the signed ADCs are allowed.

14. Ref: RFP W15QKN-22-R-0008, C.6.6 Bi-Weekly Integrated Product Team (IPT) Meetings: To support IPT meetings, will the USG allow virtual collaboration tools, such as Zoom for Government or similar applications?

Government Response: The Government will set up Government conference lines or Government approved virtual applications for IPT meetings supporting this contract.

15. Ref: RFP W15QKN-22-R-0008, C.3.3.8 Tool Control Inspections: Will the USG please define the timeframe for take “immediate action” to correct the tool problem?

Government Response: Paragraph C.3.3.8 has been updated to remove the word “immediate” and revised the sentence as follows: “…the Contractor shall take action to correct the tool problem such that production of non-conforming product ceases, and …”

16. Ref: RFP W15QKN-22-R-0008, C.3.3.8 Tool Control Inspections: Please define "adequate surveillance documentation." What qualifies as adequate surveillance documentation? Is the documentation required for USG approval or for informational purposes? If it is required for approval, please provide the review, revision, and approval timeframes.

Government Response: In paragraph C.3.3.8, the word “adequate” has been removed and the sentence has been revised as follows:

“…The Contractor shall be responsible for maintaining surveillance documentation of the tool to assure compliance with the drawing requirements throughout the life of the tools. The surveillance documentation shall include all dimensional data and inspections collected on the tool to assure compliance with the drawing requirements throughout the life of the tools.”

The tool surveillance documentation does not require USG approval. It is for information review purposes. Should the information reviewed identify a defective tool control (component or tool) dimension, reference paragraph C.3.3.8 for the requirement following such an identification. The timeline for submission after request for the surveillance documentation is located in CDRL A016. However, to ensure the surveillance plan is documented, paragraph C.3.3.8 has been revised as follows: “…The Contractor shall generate a tool correlation study prior to substitution request submission to the Government.

The tool correlation study shall also include the tool surveillance plan to assure compliance with the drawing requirements throughout the life of the tools…”

17. Ref: RFP W15QKN-22-R-0008, C.3.3.8 Tool Control Inspections: The reference SOW section states “Upon request, the Contractor shall provide all tool surveillance documentation to the Government in accordance with DD Form 1423 (DI-NDTI-80809B).” Will the USG please define the timeframe for “upon request”?

Government Response: CDRL A016 contains the contract reference to paragraph C.3.3.8.

Amendment 002 of this solicitation updated CDRL A016 to include the timeframe for submission to the Government.

18. CDRLs: There are CDRLs that do not state whether the CDRL requires USG approval or are to be submitted for informational purposes. For the CDRLs below, please provide clarification whether each CDRL requires USG approval or shall be submitted for informational purposes.

For the CDRLs requiring USG approval, please provide the complete approval/review cycles to include (1) Contractor submission timeframe (2) USG review/response timeframe, (3) Contractor revision timeframe, and (4) USG final approval timeframe.

• CDRL A006: Acceptance Test Reports (ATR)/Quality and Inspection Records

• CDRL A012: Certification/Data Report/Material Certification

• CDRL A016: Test Inspection Report/Tool Surveillance Documentation

Government Response:

• CDRL A006: Acceptance Test Reports (ATR)/Quality and Inspection Records: is a submission for information review purposes.

• CDRL A012: Certification/Data Report/Material Certification: Block 16 describes the Material Certification submission as a part of the FATR (CDRL A010), LATR (CDRL A011), as well as, made available for review during production.

With respect to the FATR, CDRL A010 includes all timeframes for submission, review, response, revisions, and approvals.

With respect to the LATR, CDRL A011 has been updated to add review, revision, and approval timeframes as follows: “…The QAR will respond within 5 business days of receipt. If further revisions are necessary, the Contractor shall have 3 business days to provide revisions and the Government will provide response within 3 business days…”.

With respect to CDRL A012, the statement, “Material certifications shall be available for review during production.”, is not a submission for approval; however, the material certifications shall be available to the Government for information review during production. Furthermore, since a Material Certification is an Inspection Record for compliance with the contract requirements, in accordance with paragraph C.3.3.1 “…The Contractor shall submit any Quality and Inspection Records to the Government upon request in accordance with DD Form 1423 (DI-QCIC-81891)…” submission to the Government for information review purposes can be requested under CDRL A006. In addition, paragraph C.3.3.11 is also applicable as the requirement here states, “…the Contractor shall submit those inspection and test records as objective evidence of all inspections performed and their outcomes to the Government in accordance with DD Form 1423 (DI-NDTI-80809B Tailored)…”.

Therefore, submission to the Government for information review purposes is under CDRL A017 as well.

• CDRL A016: Test Inspection Report/Tool Surveillance Documentation: was updated in Amendment 002 of this solicitation. CDRL A016 includes the timeframe for submission to the Government. The tool surveillance documentation is a submission for information review purposes.

19. CDRLs: The CDRLs listed below have SOW references that imply or state the required deliverable is subject to USG approval and includes a partial approval/review cycle. For each CDRL, please confirm if USG approval is required and please provide the complete approval cycles to include (1) Contractor submission timeframe (2) USG review/response timeframe,

(3) Contractor revision timeframe, and (4) USG final approval timeframe.

• CDRL A009: Test Plan/First Article Test (FAT) Plan

• CDRL A011: Inspection and Test Report/Lot Acceptance Test Report (LATR)

• CDRL A009: Test Plan/First Article Test (FAT) Plan: has been updated to include timeframes for submission, review, response, revisions, and approvals as recognized in Question 20. Also, paragraph C.3.3.2 has been updated as follows: “The Contractor shall submit a First Article Test Plan for approval in accordance with DD Form 1423 (DI-NDTI- 80566A)…”

• CDRL A011: Inspection and Test Report/Lot Acceptance Test Report (LATR): has been updated as discussed in Question 18 to include timeframes for submission, review, response, revisions, and approvals. Also, CDRL A011 has been updated as follows “…the Contractor shall submit LATRs to QAR for approval within…”

20. CDRL A009: We respectfully request “…the Contractor shall have 5 calendar days to provide revision” for the FAR Plan be amended to “…the Contractor shall have 15 calendar days to provide revision” in block 16 of CDRL A009. The current time allotted does not account for weekends and holidays.

Government Response: CDRL A009 has been revised as follows: “…If further revisions are necessary, the Contractor shall have 5 business days to provide revisions…” to account for weekends and holidays. Refer to paragraph C.12.7 for definition of Business Day.

21. CDRL A010: We respectfully request clarification whether final approval of the FAT report is required prior to the start of production or if conditional approval will be granted in light of the delivery schedule date running concurrently with the review cycle time of the FAR report.

Government Response: The Government will provide response to the FATR within the stated timelines of the contract. The timelines for Contractor submission requirements for the FATR are located within the CDRLs, clauses, and/or Attachment 003 Quality Addendum.

The required Contractor submission timelines and Government review timelines are in alignment with the delivery schedule requirements. It is the Contractor responsibility to meet the required submission timelines in accordance with the contract. The Government will meet the review timelines in accordance with the contract.

22. CDRLs: The CDRL(s) listed below states USG approval is required, however, an approval/review cycle is not provided. For each CDRL, please provide the complete approval cycles to include (1) Contractor submission timeframe (2) USG review/response timeframe,

(3) Contractor revision timeframe, and (4) USG final approval timeframe.

• CDRL A026: Ammunition Data Card (ADC)

• CDRL A036: Operation Security (OPSEC) Plan-OPSEC

• CDRL A037: Management Plan—2-D Bar Code Label Verification

• CDRL A026: Ammunition Data Card (ADC): With respect to sample ADCs, this CDRL has been updated as follows:

“Contractor shall submit sample cards into WARP… The Government will respond within 15 calendar days of receipt. If further revisions are necessary, the Contractor shall have 3 business days to revise and the Government will provide response within 10 calendar days…”

With respect to submission of lot ADCs, this CDRL has been updated as follows:

“Submission of ADCs shall commence with FA and continue with each subsequent deliverable production lot. The Government will respond within 2 business days of receipt. If further revisions are necessary, the Contractor shall have 2 business days to revise and the Government will provide response within 2 business days…”

• CDRL A036: Operation Security (OPSEC) Plan-OPSEC: this CDRL has been updated as follows:

“Contractor shall submit 90 calendar days after contract award. The Government will respond within 60 calendar days of receipt. If further revisions are necessary, the Contractor shall have 15 calendar days to provide revisions and the Government will provide response within 15 calendar days.”

• CDRL A037: Management Plan—2-D Bar Code Label Verification: this CDRL includes the timeframe for submission, and response. The CRL has been updated as follows: “If further revisions are necessary, the Contractor shall have 15 calendar days to provide revisions and the Government will provide response within 15 calendar days.”

23. CDRLs: Please confirm the CDRLs listed below are required for USG informational purposes and do not require approval, which would impact schedule:

• CDRL A004: Acceptance Test Report (ART)/ISO or Equivalent Certification

• CDRL A005: Quality Program Plan (QPP)

• CDRL A017: Inspection and Test Report/Inspection and Test Record

• CDRL A018: Data Item Descriptions (DIDs)/Physical Configuration Audit (PCA)

• CDRL A019: Inspection and Test Report/Audit Reports

• CDRL A023: Acceptance Test Report (ATR)/Tensile Testing & Plain Strain Fracture

Toughness Testing

• CDRL A025: Test/Inspection Report/Process Capability Objective Evidence

• CDRL A027: Production Status Report/Delayed Delivery, Monthly Production

Status Report, GFM Status

• CDRL A028: Quality Deficiency Report/Product Quality Deficiency Report (PQDR)

• CDRL A030: Accident/Incident Report

• CDRL A031: Hazardous Waste (HW) Report

• CDRL A032: Contract Summary Report/End of Contract Report

• CDRL A034: Report, Record of Meeting/Minutes

• CDRL A035: Management Plan-PCCI Briefing Charts

• CDRL A004 - Acceptance Test Report (ART)/ISO or Equivalent Certification: This CDRL is for information review purposes.

• CDRL A005 - Quality Program Plan (QPP): Contains multiple Section C paragraph references each with its individual timeline associated. As stated in Block 16 for Paragraph C.3.3.1, “The Contractor shall submit the QPP upon request. The Contractor shall submit the QPP or portions of the QPP to the requesting Government Representative within 2 business days.” This CDRL is for information review purposes. Also under Paragraph C.3.3.1, Block 16 states, “For changes to the QPP, the Contractor shall submit the QPP to the Government for review. The Government will respond within 45 calendar days of receipt of original submission or subsequent revisions.” This addresses the statement in Paragraph C.3.3.1, “The Contractor shall not implement changes to their established QPP without notification to the Government, submission of the changes for Government review, and approval of the changes by the Contracting Officer.” Therefore, changes to the established QPP are submitted for approval. Lastly, as stated in Block 16 for Paragraph C.3.3.13.2.2, QMS Audit Schedule is for information review purposes.

• CDRL A017 - Inspection and Test Report/Inspection and Test Record: This CDRL is for information review purposes.

• CDRL A018 - Data Item Descriptions (DIDs)/Physical Configuration Audit (PCA): This CDRL is for information review purposes. Paragraph C.3.3.13.1 has been updated in CDRL as follows, “The Contractor shall submit the data within 10 calendar days after completion of an audit.”

• CDRL A019 - Inspection and Test Report/Audit Reports: This CDRL is for information review purposes.

• CDRL A023 - Acceptance Test Report (ATR)/Tensile Testing & Plain Strain Fracture Toughness Testing: This CDRL is for information review purposes.

• CDRL A025 - Test/Inspection Report/Process Capability Objective Evidence: This CDRL is for information review purposes.

• CDRL A027 - Production Status Report/Delayed Delivery, Monthly Production Status Report, GFM Status: This CDRL is for information review purposes.

• CDRL A028 - Quality Deficiency Report/Product Quality Deficiency Report (PQDR):

This CDRL is for information review purposes.

• CDRL A030 - Accident/Incident Report is for information review purposes.

• CDRL A031 - Hazardous Waste (HW) Report is for information review purposes.

• CDRL A032 Contract Summary Report/End of Contract Report is for information review purposes.

• CDRL A034 - Report, Record of Meeting/Minutes is for information review purposes.

• CDRL A035 - Management Plan-PCCI Briefing Charts is for information review purposes.

24. CDRLs: The CDRL(s) listed below includes a USG review cycle, however, the CDRL nor the reference SOW section(s) define whether USG approval is required. Will the USG please provide CDRL and SOW clarification whether the submittal requires USG approval or is submitted for informational purposes?

• CDRL A007: Contractors Standard Operating Procedures /Coating Procedures

• CDRL A008: Contractors Standard Operating Procedures/Rotating Band Weld

• CDRL A022: Interface Control Document (ICD)/Low Level Process Map

• CDRL A033: Integrated Program Management Report (IPMR)/Integrated Master

Schedule

• CDRL A007 - Contractors Standard Operating Procedures /Coating Procedures: Contains the reference to Paragraph C.3.3.1.1.1, which was updated to state, “…the Contractor shall submit to the Government for review and approval…”

• CDRL A008 - Contractors Standard Operating Procedures/Rotating Band Weld: The subtitle was updated to “Lifting Plug Repair & Rotating Band Weld” in Amendment 002. This CDRL contains the reference to paragraph C.3.3.1.1.2 in Block 5. Paragraph C.3.3.1.1.2 has been updated to state, “…The Contractor shall submit the aforementioned documents, including revisions thereto, to the Government for review and approval…”

• CDRL A022 - Interface Control Document (ICD)/Low Level Process Map: This CDRL is for information review purposes.

• CDRL A033 - Integrated Program Management Report (IPMR)/Integrated Master Schedule:

This CDRL is for information review purposes.

25. CDRL A008, Contractors Standard Operation Procedures/Rotating Band Weld: We respectfully request clarification whether FOD removal and replacement of ring gasket are rework procedures and if so, would they be included in the QPP?

Government Response: Yes, this is a rework procedure. CRL A008’s subtitle has been updated to reflect this in the subtitle. The procedure submission specifically falls under CDRL A008. Per paragraph C.3.3.1 “The QPP shall include but not limited to sections covering the Contractor’s and Subcontractors’… and Rework Procedures…”